Sure, it's currently one of the best written governing documents that humans have historically produced, but nothing is perfect and you have to be really careful about it. How about just finishing what Roosevelt proposed back in 1944? A second Bill of Rights. It still seems to be a pretty good idea.

The only problem I see is the major push for a "constitutional convention" to actually change it is being driven behind the scenes by monied interests that would love to figure out how to charge you for breathing. I love libertarian ideas of personal responsibility and accountability for your actions, as well as the NAP; but the behind the scenes stuff that is funding some of the rhetoric on the national stage is pretty subversive, and the "Tea Party" is a perfect example. Monied interests would love for you to vote in more 'freedom' so they can charge you more, or start charging you for something everyone currently gets for free.

So I would be really careful on how and what is allowed to happen. Specifically because of history, as mobs are not thinking individuals discussing things; they just gather around something so they can throw in anything they disagree with, and watch it burn. Not even comprehending if they have been manipulated to burn their own protections.

Some of the christian religion factions (Dominionism especially) have been trying to subvert the first amendment as soon as it was signed. No better than any of religious theocracies around the world. Which is why the first amendment was put into place in the first place. And over the years the religious folks have been successful in changing America's motto, pledge, or adding their creeds to the money, etc; mainly due to their erroneous 'persecution complex'. But they are all surreptitious violations of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Which is there to protect their religious views in the first place.

I think you need to remove your liberal blinders if you think the Convention of States is driven by monied interests. Do you really believe that entire states governments are being bought off to add nefarious things to the Constitution? Things such as term limits, a balanced budget and reigning in out of control spending in Washington?

You really show your hand when you speak of the tea party. A faction who wants to return to the rule of law and respecting the Constitution as it is currently. Respect for the Constitution and adhering to the law is bad how?

Agreed. There are so many people that are against the constitution claiming it's "old." Essential human rights never get old. They are always vital and necessary. People then say it should be more specific, but no. If it were too specific, it would be outdated all the time with new technologies. The unspecificness of it is what makes it apply to everything, which is good.

The Constitution is not about human rights, it's about setting up a system of government. It IS old, and obsolete, and needs to be updated. The Bill of Rights is the only part that concerns essential human rights. It's obsolete too, since there's no mechanism to actually enforce it; the 4th Amendment, for instance, hasn't been in force for decades.

I propose we create a new Constitution which mandates the Condorcet voting system, and eliminates the tricameral system of government in favor of a European-style parliamentary system. Our system looks good in theory, but doesn't work very well in practice. The European systems work much better in practice and allow minority parties to have some power.

Edit: I also propose a somewhat modified Bill of Rights, to update it with the times. For instance, in the EU, privacy rights are very strong, unlike here, and that should be added to our BoR. People in 1776 didn't have to worry much about databases or surveillance. The freedom of religion bit should probably be modified a bit so that people can also have freedom from religion if they choose, and also so that religious freedom doesn't lead to denying other rights, such as children not getting proper medical care because of their parents' insane religious beliefs. The Second Amendment should also be modified and clarified (in modern English) so that we can finally stop arguing about what exactly it means.

The Constitution, as the libs are fond of saying, is a "living document". It can be modified through the amendment process.
The authors created it to be difficult to change with the intent of keeping the will of a mob from adding or removing bits and pieces to suit the whim of the day.

REPEAL the 16th Amendment.
Use tariffs, tolls, fees for service & fines to fund the Federal govt or have the State's Comptroller General collect taxes in accordance with state law & apportioned by population & economic productivity & then send to Federal Treasury each year.

The reason the 17th Amendment was put into place was the corruption that was state legislators picking Senators. Repealing the 17th Amendment actually takes power AWAY from the people. In states where the legislature is practically half and half with political parties (like New Hampshire), that's fine but I would never get a moderate Republican senator in Massachusetts (see Scott Brown) when our state house is 80% Dem and corrupt beyond D.C.

A process for "updating" the Constitution is already in place. It's called the Amendment process. It's not easy, but changing the Constitution should not be easy, but vigorously debated and well thought out.

I've got several suggestions for amendments, but the one that is most important to me is that I want to see Section 1 of the 14th Amendment re-written. Specifically, this sentence:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That sentence is far too vague, and the way that the US Supreme Court interprets it is far too often to take advantage of the vagueness to strike down laws that they do not like. The Court itself has claimed that, with regards to the Due Process Clause, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Two problems: 1) the first half of that assertion is completely false, nothing at all in the Constitution obligates anyone to define liberty, and 2) there is no way to do that task objectively, such decisions have to be subjective, and therefore the second half of that statement is completely and outrageously hypocritical. The Court mandates its own moral code whenever it decides when a person deserves to have liberty from a law made by a legislature, and the "liberty" did not come from any other clause of the US Constitution. Likewise, the use of the Equal Protection Clause is completely subjective.

I have drafted a re-write of Section 1 of the 14th. My proposal is that the states should continue being obligated to respect MOST, but not all, of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. My proposal leaves the 2nd Amendment out, so states are allowed to adopt gun control measures, and I specifically say that McDonald v. Chicago will be void. But the courts are not obligated or permitted to "define liberty," or decree that states have to respect any "unenumerated rights." I also say in my proposal which kinds of discrimination states are not allowed to engage in: discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, or religion. The equal right to vote shall continue to be respected; the principle of "one person, one vote" shall continue to be enforced; and redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions, not state legislatures. Lastly, I conclude with a brief paragraph that condemns the Bush v. Gore decision.

I believe everyone should read the Constitution. I can not believe how difficult it is to get a printed copy. I would love to carry a copy with me so some of the "mental giants" out there could read what they think they know!

No, the Constitution should remain as it is because the only changes possible today will be at the behest of the people who control the politicians... i.e. the big monied interests.

As flawed as it may be, it needs to remain inviolate unless some glaring problem is found (which is why the change process is included).

What REALLY needs to happen, however, is that the U.S. governments at ALL levels (federal, state, and local) need to start DOING what the Constitution says rather than ignoring it and doing what they "think" it says (or worse, just plain flaunting their abuse of the citizen's rights while knowing full well they're doing wrong).